Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Costello: Later Denaturalization Did Not Turn Citizen-Era Convictions Into Alien-Era Convictions

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 12, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120 (1964).

Costello v. Immigration and Naturalization Service involved a naturalized citizen convicted of two tax-evasion offenses, later denaturalized for willful misrepresentation, and then charged as deportable based on those earlier convictions.

Both convictions occurred while Costello was a citizen

Costello naturalized in 1925 and was convicted of separate tax-evasion offenses in 1954. His citizenship was revoked years later in a distinct denaturalization case.

The deportation charge required convictions of an alien

Why did status at conviction matter? The Court considered the former statute ambiguous; the verb tense alone did not settle it. A special 1920 espionage statute had used different language and a specific wartime date, so its broader reach did not resolve the 1952 general deportation provision. Costello, 376 U.S. at 122–125.

Denaturalization did not relate back for this purpose

The decisive statutory context included a protection then available at sentencing: A timely judicial recommendation against deportation could prevent removal on this criminal ground. A citizen could not realistically obtain that alien-specific recommendation, and the sentencing court lacked authority to provide it for a citizen. Applying the ground after denaturalization would eliminate that protection for an entire class. Costello, 376 U.S. at 126–128. This explains the historical holding; it does not offer that old sentencing procedure as a present-day remedy.

Current cases require present statutory and categorical analysis

The Court reversed the judgment under the 1952 Act. Its reasoning was statutory, not a constitutional immunity for every conviction during citizenship. A current review must first identify the charged ground, the status event its text requires and any applicable present law. A categorical comparison of an offense is a separate issue; it does not answer the timing question decided here.

Key takeaways

• Build a dated chronology of entry, naturalization, convictions, and denaturalization.
• Match each charged ground to the person’s legal status at the relevant statutory event.
• Obtain certified conviction records and analyze the current categorical framework.
• Do not assume that every consequence of denaturalization relates back automatically.